Is Shields Really Our Most Important Player To Re-Sign?

I understand that he's a pretty good CB, so this thread isn't taking anything away from his play. However, I'll offer up the theory that EDS is our most important player to re-sign because of the position. We aren't moving Lang to center (I hope) unless an emergency pops up so if EDS leaves, no matter what we'll have either a rookie or FA center playing that position. We saw how bad it was with Saturday, and while Tretter looks good he still has zero NFL snaps and no real experience in our offense except for some rare practice reps at the end of the season. So if we lose our starting center, it will affect the pass protection schemes for Rodgers and certainly affect Lacy's ability to run through holes. If we lose Shields, we still have Tramon, Hayward, and House.

Is there a more important player to re-sign than EDS? My thought is "no." His absence would have the biggest impact to this team.

I understand that he's a pretty good CB, so this thread isn't taking anything away from his play. However, I'll off the theory that EDS is our most important player to re-sign because of the position. We aren't moving Lang to center (I hope) unless an emergency pops up so if EDS leaves, no matter what we'll have either a rookie or FA center playing that position. We saw how bad it was with Saturday, and while Tretter looks good he still has zero NFL experience. So if we lose our starting center, it will affect the pass protection schemes for Rodgers and certainly affect Lacy's ability to run through holes. If we lose Shields, we still have Tramon, Hayward, and House.

Is there a more important player to re-sign than EDS? My thought is "no." His absence would have the biggest impact to this team.

Click to expand...

I still think Shields is the most important guy to re-sign, but I agree with you that holding on to EDS should be one of TT´s top priorities this offseason as well.

Shields is far and away the Packers most important player to resign. Shields is one of the best young corners in the league... Not to mention the back four of the Packers defense is HORRIBLE. Both safeties are replaceable at this time (Burnett and Jennings). Shields and Williams give the secondary credibility, but Williams is 30 years-old and on the last year of his deal.

Tramon´s contract will either be restructured (in this case it will be extended) or he´ll be released. There´s absolutely no chance he´ll play out this contract under the current conditions.

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. Williams is a 30-year old corner on the last year of his contract and $7.5M cap number while Shields is 26 years-old and could be signed to a long-term deal. Shields makes more sense than Williams next year and years after next.

House was not horrible. He certainly wasn't great but he was starting to make plays towards the end of the season.
Say what you want about contracts but we've got capable guys under contract for next season at CB. We don't have that luxury at center.

I want to see EDS signed because I agree with El Guapo: Keeping the interior OL continuity makes sense, I agree Lang isn't the answer at OC and I really like him where he is, and there's no other experienced OC available. But young talented CBs are harder to find and therefor more valuable, so Shields is at the top of the list IMO.

That's exactly my point. Williams is a 30-year old corner on the last year of his contract and $7.5M cap number while Shields is 26 years-old and could be signed to a long-term deal. Shields makes more sense than Williams next year and years after next.

If the Packers don't end up not needing all of their 30 million of cap space, I have no problem keeping Tramon with his current contract. If it would get in the way of signing someone else they want, then a restructure would be good.

Even in that case it doesn't make any sense as teams can carry over salary cap space they didn't use during a season into the next one.

Click to expand...

O yeah. Totally forgot about that aspect. If he refuses to restructure, I'd rather keep him though than release him. He was very good the second half of the season and we all know the defense could use good play.

O yeah. Totally forgot about that aspect. If he refuses to restructure, I'd rather keep him though than release him. He was very good the second half of the season and we all know the defense could use good play.

Click to expand...

I think he will accept to restructure his contract, the Packers will just have to turn his current 2014 base salary into a signing bonus so he'll get the same amount of money he was supposed to earn this year .

House was not horrible. He certainly wasn't great but he was starting to make plays towards the end of the season.
Say what you want about contracts but we've got capable guys under contract for next season at CB. We don't have that luxury at center.

Click to expand...

I see House as having alternated between impressive and terrible. He's shown good coverage and ball skills at times, but fooled and burned deep too often. The "too often" part is worrisome.

Now, Tramon played off-coverage in 2012 and most of 2013. Opponents threw underneath him time and time again, and he'd too often miss the tackle to boot.

On the basis of that comparison, knowing there'd be about a $7 mil difference in cap between the two players, I'd just as soon go with House, play him in off coverage, and drum into his head that stopping the deep ball is Job #1. We'd get the same result for a lot less money.

The problem is that in the last few games Williams started to look like the player we gave that contract to . Getting religion in the face of getting cut? Or finally recovered from the nerve issues in the shoulder? Hard to tell. But the improved play makes an easy decision a lot harder.

Have to keep Shields..if the Packers had an all pro type of safety Shields would still be a priority but not as high. Big plays dont come for this defense often and Shields has shown the ability to make plays.

Even in that case it doesn't make any sense as teams can carry over salary cap space they didn't use during a season into the next one.

Click to expand...

Yes, the carry-over aspect is often overlooked. There are two key considerations here.

The obvious one is that what you don't use now can be used later; this was not true under the old CBA. Thinking about this year without at least looking at next year is putting your head in the sand.

The less obvious one is the bind created in future years, as soon as the following year, if you spend up to the inflated cap limit with multi-year contracts. Using that additional $10 mil on contracts with signing bonus cap hangovers in future years is a must-win-now strategy. I wouldn't expect to see that unless TT thought his job was on the line. We're not there yet. Yet there is a faint smell of recognition in the air that on balance this is not a very good football team once you get past Rodgers, so lets say TT gets somewhat agressive and uses $4.4 of the $9.4 mil in carryover this year.

That takes the $28 mil available cap down to $23 mil.

Also, the reported $28 mil cap only accounts for the top 51 at this moment. Once the season starts, the 53 man roster + practice squad + IR + PUP counts against the cap. If you end up with 10 guys on PUP and IR and add 2 guys to the 53 man roster and all 12 of those guys were merely minimum salary rookies, you'd need to have $5 mil in reserve. Practice Squad is another $1 million.

Now we're at $17 mil in available cap.

You also need to sign your draftees. The top draft picks are most likely to bump minimum salary guys off the squad and out of the cap hit. Figure on $2.5 mil cap hit in the differential.

Now we're $14.5 mil in available cap before signing any FA, our own or an outsider.

Suddenly, the expansive riches in cap space are not so expansive.

This goes to illustrate how difficult it is to maintain a solid veteran presence while avoiding future dead cap hell or a season of slash/burn/rebuild. The key to extended years of success is drafting well and getting a lot of productivity out of players in their first 4 years when they are cheap...and have more young guys constantly come up behind them so there are options when the cycle of 2nd./3rd. contract extortion keeps rearing it's head.

It is very difficult to get around a few years of mediocre drafting. A few FA vets who won't cost a lot in signing bonus (read: potential future dead cap) is the only real stop gap available.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I expect the Packers to carry over all of tbe $9.4 million into next season.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, though I'm not sure why you'd assume that.

On second thought, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean you expect the Pack to carry the $9.4 mil to 2015, or to 2014 (that happens automatically), or what?

The cap dollars carryover, but there's no requirement they be used in any one year. They can be carried over to the following year, and so on unless there's another change in the next CBA.

They'll use the carryover at some point...to keep carrying it over from year to year ad infinitum doesn't make much sense. The reason I suggest we might use some this year is because the team isn't all that good.

On second thought, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean you expect the Pack to carry the $9.4 mil to 2015, or to 2014 (that happens automatically), or what?

Click to expand...

Actually each team may carry over any remaining cap room from one year to the next by submitting written notice, signed by the owner of the team, to the league office no later than 14 days before the start of the next league year. The written notice must indicate the maximum amount of cap room that the team wishes to shift from one cap year to the next.

I understood your previous post the way that you only want the Packers to carry over $4.4 million, losing $5 million of cap space for next season.

Actually each team may carry over any remaining cap room from one year to the next by submitting written notice, signed by the owner of the team, to the league office no later than 14 days before the start of the next league year. The written notice must indicate the maximum amount of cap room that the team wishes to shift from one cap year to the next.

I understood your previous post the way that you only want the Packers to carry over $4.4 million, losing $5 million of cap space for next season.

Or did you mean that TT will spend $5 million to sign free agents???

Click to expand...

I thought it was clear that my example has him spending $4.4 million of the $9.4 million in 2014. In other words, the example assumes we'd be carrying a cap number for 2014 of the $126.3 mil league cap number (or whatever the final figure is) + $4.4 mil of the carryover put to use in 2014.

It would be ludicrous not to request cap carryover; wise not to spend all of it at once.